Richmond Travelodge refused planning permision (From Your Local Guardian)
Contact us: Got a photo? Text SLPICS to 80360, click to upload your story or call
020 8722 6392
Richmond Travelodge refused planning permision
3:57pm Friday 17th February 2012 in Richmond By Christine Fleming
An application to build a 78-room Travelodge in Richmond has been refused.
The hotel proposal for Paradise Road was turned down on the advice of council officers’ recommendations when it was considered at Richmond Council’s planning committee last night.
Officers recommended refusal of the project on the basis the plan’s form and design were a visually intrusive form of development which would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area.
Neighbouring residents also spoke at the meeting about their concerns that a hotel in that area would contribute to parking issues, as there was no proposed designated car park as part of the development, fears about the building’s proximity to the street and worries about visual intrusion.
Comments(47)
Twickenham resident
says...
7:57pm Fri 17 Feb 12
The Twickenham Moonsurface Travelodge doesn't have any parking either but that didn't stop it being built.
Gareth Roberts
says...
8:04pm Fri 17 Feb 12
I'm not at all sorry to disabuse you of the misapprehension under which you appear to be labouring. Back in July 2011 at the Twickenham Advisory Panel Public Meeting Vince was vocal in his support for the Plan B proposed by TRAG - he even suggested that the plan should be jointly funded by the RFU and Solum so as to ensure the affordability of the scheme
If you prefer to think I'm making this up perhaps you'd care to look at the report of the meeting on TRAG's own website
http://trag-sos.moon
fruit.com/#/plan-b/4
556544947
Need I also point out that Vince was very much in attendance at that meeting, whereas strangely last night Zac Goldsmith was nowhere to be seen supporting the many Richmond residents who turned out.
Perhaps a reappraisal of your comments?
Concerned_Resident
says...
8:12pm Fri 17 Feb 12
Twickenham resident wrote:I think I am right in saying that Travelodge in Twickenham was granted permission when they appealed against the Council's refusal?
How predictable. I think I should start a sweepstake on the outcome of LBRuT planning meeetings. I'd clean up.
The Twickenham Moonsurface Travelodge doesn't have any parking either but that didn't stop it being built.
aspicer
says...
8:34pm Fri 17 Feb 12
3million unemployed and counting.
Twickenham Bob
says...
11:16pm Fri 17 Feb 12
The reason Richmond is still doing well during the recession is that its built environment has been protected.
If you walk down Twickenham where planning controls are more lax - you can see the outcome. An unattractive town center with finds it hard to attract national chain stores or shoppers.
twickerman
says...
10:11am Sat 18 Feb 12
I agree that Vince Cable suggested that 'Solum should consider a Plan B' at the TAP meeting in July.
However, this was not an objection to the Solum scheme, but an opportunistic statement to give the impression he was interested.
His total lack of action before and after this single statement confirm that it was opportunistic and that he was well and truly on the fence on this major Twickenham development.
If he had been seriously interested in a Plan B he would have attended TRAG's public meeting to launch their Plan B (to which he was invited), and would have made supporting statements following TRAGs Plan B presentations to him at his surgery. He did neither.
The Solum planning campaign lasted 18 months, and during that time Vince made just the one brief verbal statement about considering a Plan B.
No written statements, no objections, no political action, no conviction.
I rest my case for opportunism rather than conviction.
Gareth Roberts
says...
1:08pm Sat 18 Feb 12
I quote "Twickenham MP Vince Cable has only just announced (in his recent flyer) that he supports TRAG's Plan B scheme for Twickenham station. Sorry, but it's too late to come off the fence now Vince!"
Now it appears you knew all about this though you sought to make silly party capital out of it. Now who's being opportunistic, eh?
Julie Hill
says...
1:56pm Sat 18 Feb 12
aspicer - it would be great if Travelodge did provide local jobs. Despite having stated the Twickenham Travelodge would provide at least 30 jobs, none were advertised and according to their Area Manager, not one local person has been employed.
The promise of creating "local jobs" is creeping into commercial planning applications, presumably as a sop to the planning officers and to court public support. The reality is somewhat different.
twickerman
says...
2:25pm Sat 18 Feb 12
I personally don't have any party alliance, and simply observed, independently, that one has local MP has actively supported local concern about inappropriate development, while another sat on the fence despite overwhelming local concern.
In July Vince didn't support any particular scheme. He just suggested Solum consider a Plan B. TRAG's Plan B didn't exist then.
Unless you can provide proof otherwise, the only support Vince provided for TRAG's Plan B was in his recent flyer two month's AFTER the planning committee had determined the application. That's not active support. That's opportunism pure and simple.
If it wasn't for TRAG, Vince's comment at the TAP meeting would have gone totally unreported.
Gareth Roberts
says...
4:56pm Sun 19 Feb 12
http://swlondoner.co
.uk/content/2110493-
outraged-twickenham-
residents-fight-high
-rise-development-pl
ans
Dated October 2011 - two months before the planning application and containing quotes from a TRAG member and editorial comment suggesting that "TRAG has strong political backing with both Twickenham MP Vince Cable and Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith supporting their objections" which, one assumes, reflects comments made to the journalist writing the story.
twickerman
says...
7:13pm Sun 19 Feb 12
If that's the only 'evidence' you could find it totally confirms my statement that Vince never supported TRAGs Plan B or objected to Solum's station applications.
The evidence you refer to is not from Vince himself, but from a TRAG member quoting the brief verbal statement Vince made at the TAP meeting to just 200 people.
Here it is:
'TRAG member John Parsons said that Mr Cable has urged Solum to create an alternative development plan that contributes more to the station and does not scar the predominantly low-rise area.'
If Vince really cared about the station and the local area he could and should have done considerably more to influence the outcome.
Your third hand repetition of the TAP 'evidence' is a pretty lame.
Don't you have any real evidence directly from Vince himself?
No, of course you don't.
Can you also get your facts right. Vince couldn't have supported TRAGs Plan B at the meeting in July, because it didn't exist then.
It was presented to him shortly before it was publicly launched in October, but he declined invitations to the public meeting, and declined the opportunity to provide a statement of his suppport.
But, ever the opportunist, he finally came out in mild support of TRAGs Plan B in his newsletter this month. Four months too late for anything but his own self-promotion.
Gareth Roberts
says...
7:46pm Sun 19 Feb 12
1) In July Vince suggested a Plan B - having argued long since back (google it) that a smaller development would be the way forward
2) TRAG themselves, on their own website, report that Vince was in favour of a Plan B; a plan which they themselves went and sourced
3) TRAG took part in the interview in the second link I quoted and directly referenced Vince. If they were dissatisfied with Vince's involvement surely they would have taken the opportunity to make that opinion known rather than naming him as a supporter
4) Indeed I would have expected a letter in the paper from TRAG attacking Vince if he wasn't supportive of both their plan and their stand. I recall no such letter
5) You suggested that Zac was worthy of your vote because of his support for the Travelodge objecters. You are a martinet in demanding explicit examples of Vince's support for TRAG's Plan B, I assume therefore that you have a complete and full phalanx of examples of Zac's unequivocal support for the specific alternative scheme
6) In the space of two posts you have moved from vehemently asserting that Vince was two months too late in showing his support to asserting, with equal vehemence, that he was four months too late. Perhaps with another post you may move to six months too late.
There you go, a few thoughts for you to possibly think about, probably ignore and almost definitely come back with more spurious nonsense.
Concerned_Resident
says...
9:26pm Sun 19 Feb 12
alex twickenham
says...
11:18pm Sun 19 Feb 12
Councillor Gareth Roberts has a pretty high opinion of his own intellect and hates to be bested - when presented with what he considers pettifogging inaccuracies he tends to try to bluster his way out of trouble. He usually gets away with it because people wilt under the onslaught so I hope you don't let him do so. Take heart, he's a lot less impressive in the flesh in the Council chamber.
As a constituent of Vince Cable, I struggle to think of anything that he has done for Twickenham apart from putting us on the map - usually for the wrong reasons. His political instincts are pretty sharp but have tended to focus on his own laborious ascent to and retention of power. That has little or nothing to do with our needs. I hope the boundary changes take place as proposed. I'm also pleased to report that my wife, previously a staunch supporter, was so incensed by the hypocrisy of Vince's election leaflet that she will not vote for him again. Yippee, another hard won convert!
Alex
PS: concerned_resident who gets wheeled out every now and then is quite fun.
Gareth Roberts
says...
11:51pm Sun 19 Feb 12
So pleasing to see that in addition to your twin roles of pom-pom waving cheerleader for the Tories (much as you plea not to be labelled as such) and self appointed comments thread policeman (Jeremy kept a sensible distance from your rather obvious attempts to ingratiate yourself, I noticed) you're now a member of the Critics' Guild. Splendid stuff.
I know I keep mentioning this, and I know it must be rather tiresome for you, but any chance of a comment on the substance of the piece or, indeed, on the substance of the thread. I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that such matters rarely concern you.
twickerman
says...
9:03am Mon 20 Feb 12
If there was any other evidence of Vince's objection to Solum's plans or his support for a smaller scheme I'm sure Gareth wouldn't hesitate to present it.
In a desperate attempt to deflect from this lack of evidence he suggests - 'google it'.
Is that really the best you can come up with Gareth? Is that what you suggest when you are losing a debate in the Council chamber? 'google it'!!
Regarding timescales, Vince had 18 months to make his views clear (between Solum's initial presentation of their scheme and the planning committee meeting in December). That's a long time to sit on the fence.
Across the Thames there was no question of Zac's opposition to the Richmond Travelodge. He submitted a written objection, prior to the planning committee meeting, which is clear for all to see.
Conviction vs Opportunism.
Gareth Roberts
says...
9:36am Mon 20 Feb 12
Any chance of a comment on the other points you so conveniently ignored? Or even a chance of letting the mask of anonymity slip?
twickerman
says...
10:19am Mon 20 Feb 12
Where is the hard evidence from Vince himself?
-Where are his written statements?
-Where are his written objections?
-Where are his direct quotes?
It is blatantly obvious that Vince's opportunistic mailshot claim this month is the first and only time he has 'supported' TRAGs Plan B.
Over 18 months he failed to object to any of Solum's plans.
Gareth, why don't you stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Gareth Roberts
says...
11:02am Mon 20 Feb 12
1) Where are the letters castigating Vince in the press? They would have been written
2) Why would the TRAG representative quoted in the October piece have mentioned Vince if they were dissatisfied
3) Where are the similar documents from Zac that you demand from Vince? Opportunism on your part, perhaps?
And still that dodging of the anonymity issue. Your dogged refusal to accept clear evidence suggests you have a personal agenda but not one which you're willing to share.
alex twickenham
says...
11:43am Mon 20 Feb 12
Never Underestimate Tiresome Scribblers! (With thanks to General McAuliffe, Bastogne, December 22nd 1944 - 2 days after my birth)
Sorry Twickerman, your points are very well made but I couldn't resist this bit of whimsy at Gareth's expense. Whilst you clearly have an interest in the improvement of our environment in Twickenham, Gareth seems to regard everything as a political game and slavishly supports his party chums wherever and whatever. Does that make for a good representative? I certainly don't think so. Party loyalty can become an obsession - I fear Gareth crossed the line some time ago.
His abuse is tiresome and repetitive but I can hack it.
Alex.
PS: I didn't take this thread off subject or substance.
twickerman
says...
11:45am Mon 20 Feb 12
All the points you made above are totally irrelevent 'red herrings'.
This is about Vince Cable's opportunistic and unsubstantiated claim in his recent flyer.
Let me remind you of my original comment:
'I also noticed that Zac Goldsmith submitted an objection to the Travelodge application, whereas Twickenham MP Vince Cable has only just announced (in his recent flyer) that he supports TRAG's Plan B scheme for Twickenham station.
Sorry, but it's too late to come off the fence now Vince!'
Here are some REAL FACTS:
Zac DID object to Richmond Travelodge (see planning appl')
Vince DID NOT object to any of Solum's planning applications.
Vince DID NOT support TRAGs Plan B (until 2 months after the planning committee decision!).
I ask you yet again to provide REAL EVIDENCE to substantiate Vince's claim.
Gareth Roberts
says...
12:09pm Mon 20 Feb 12
And steadfastly refusing to address the anonymity issue is doing very little for your credibility as a self reported apolitical observer.
As for Alex making reference to tiresome and repetetive abuse; somewhat rich. Indeed I remember a very similar posting style being employed by a regular poster on the now, sadly, defunct VoxPops pages. I wonder if they are by any chance related.
twickerman
says...
12:19pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Where is the 'google it' evidence?
Where is the evidence on his website, earlier flyers, press statements, planning applications etc?
THERE ISN'T ANY.
Admit it.
Gareth Roberts
says...
12:35pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Just to clarify the position here. We're looking at a local MP who addresses a crowded meeting to support the principal of a Plan B back in July 2011, who was later, in October 2012, cited by the main group opposing the development as being supportive of a Plan B, who report on their website that Vince supports a Plan B and where there are various newspaper reports that Vince has met with the developers to push for a lower height development and put forward residents' concerns, was in attendance at the meeting which launched the Plan B and finally no complaints from the main campaigners relating to lack of support from their MP have been received.
The big test is 'What would any reasonable person think'.
Perhaps if you could give a glimmer into why you are so exercised by this it might help. I'm a local Lib Dem Councillor and a supporter of Vince - this is what informs my position. Your position is kept tantalisingly secret.
twickerman
says...
1:07pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Vince was NOT at TRAGs Plan B launch. I was there, and the local press were there, but Vince was definitely NOT. If he was then surely the press would have reported his presence.
Can you please provide the links to the 'various newspaper reports' in which Vince has pushed for lower development? Where are the statements that Vince made to the newspapers (not the third hand hearsay you keep regurgitating)?
The real test is whether Vince supported 'the environmentally better alternative put forward by TRAG' as he claimed in his February flyer.
Any reasonable person would say 'show me the evidence'.
FYI, I am a local resident who doesn't want to see Twickenham scarred by inappropriate development.
Fortunately, I am not informed by blinkered or blind party loyalty.
Gareth Roberts
says...
2:36pm Mon 20 Feb 12
What is rather remarkable for somebody who isn't guided by blind party loyalty is the opprobrium heaped on Vince yet Zac, who so far has said nothing whatsoever, 'gets your vote'.
And anyway this is all some way away from both the Travelodge and the real station culprits who wilfully mislead the public about their plans for the station.
twickerman
says...
3:55pm Mon 20 Feb 12
From your lack of evidence I assume that none of the googleable articles you refer to backed up your other claims.
Again you seem to have missed, or dodged, my main point which was that:
-Zac acted to prevent inappropriate Travelodge development in his constituency; whereas
- Vince did NOT act to prevent inappropriate station development in his constituency.
This is not a party political view it is a simple observation of the difference in behaviour of two neighbouring MPs.
Gareth Roberts
says...
4:21pm Mon 20 Feb 12
http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/richmondnew
s/8309169.MP_to_meet
_Twickenham_station_
developers/
"Twickenham MP Vince Cable is to meet the developers behind controversial plans to redevelop the train station.
He said he would use the meeting to raise residents' concerns"
And from this paper in September 2010
http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/richmondnew
s/8410095.Foundation
s_for_high_rise_at_T
wickenham_Station_se
t_to_cost___3m/
"The community body is looking into working with an architect to draw up a “positive alternative” to the podium, in keeping with the council’s supplementary planning document which proposes the maximum height for builds at the station and the sorting office site opposite should be five-storeys high.
The group received confirmation from Twickenham MP Vince Cable saying he backed residents’ support of the council planning paper this week."
twickerman
says...
5:00pm Mon 20 Feb 12
1. was going 'to meet developers...to raise residents concerns'
2. 'backed residents support of the council planning paper'.
He clearly failed to raise residents concerns with Solum as he isn't mentioned in any of their community involvement documents.
He didn't object to any of Solum's 3 station planning applications.
He didn't comment on TRAGs alternative plans, despite being invited to do so.
I'm afraid you're going to have to keep digging...
alex twickenham
says...
5:17pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Is Roberts right in his most recent post?
Alex
Gareth Roberts
says...
5:26pm Mon 20 Feb 12
I have to keep coming back to that one very pertinent question which you don't seem to have an answer for and it is this. If TRAG were dissatisfied with Vince's support in this matter, indeed if local residents in general were dissatisfied with Vince's involvement in this matter, where are the letters in the local press. Where is the comment on their website? Where are the Tory party leaflets that would have seized on any dissatisfaction? They don't exist, do they?
And by the way 2010 - so much for opportunism in 2012!
Gareth Roberts
says...
5:39pm Mon 20 Feb 12
twickerman
says...
5:52pm Mon 20 Feb 12
He just did it in such an incredibly subtle way so as not to worry residents by:
- not putting anything in writing
- not being quoted (first hand) by the press since Aug 2010.
It was so subtle that nobody noticed, and guess what - it made no difference!
I'm not a spokesman for TRAG, but can assure you that they were unaware of his support for their Plan B, as were the local press, until we all received his flyer this month.
TrevorC
says...
5:52pm Mon 20 Feb 12
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/busine
ss/news/dubai-to-tak
e-a-400m-hit-over-ba
ilout-of--travelodge
-7220873.html
The New York hedge fund owners only interest will be to squeeze the maximum return to reduce the debt interest payments.
Appearance, keeping in character with the area, and respecting local residents views, are more likely to be at the bottom of their consideration, if at all.
Dan Filson
says...
7:34pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Gareth Roberts
says...
8:06pm Mon 20 Feb 12
TrevorC
says...
9:03pm Mon 20 Feb 12
Mayor Boris Johnson is not averse to giving Prime Minister David Cameron a "black eye" and it may be more probable that he inflicts the same on the Conservative run Richmond Council.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if a decision were made, aside from the legalities, purely on the merits of the case, the evidence presented, sound principles, and common sense, regardless of the political allegiances. And not just based on a financial calculation that trumps everything,
The prospect of a Conservative Mayor reversing a decision made by a Conservative Council, would be a healthy democratic solution, in my book.
TrevorC
says...
9:11pm Mon 20 Feb 12
twickerman
says...
8:54am Tue 21 Feb 12
If you were standing for the GLA election you would get my vote for your refreshing common sense approach.
alex twickenham
says...
12:19pm Tue 21 Feb 12
So pleasing to see that in addition to your twin roles of pom-pom waving cheerleader for the LibDems and self appointed comments thread policeman you're now a member of the Critics'(sic?) Guild. Splendid stuff.
I know I keep mentioning this, and I know it must be rather tiresome for you, but any chance of a comment on the substance of the piece or, indeed, on the substance of the thread. I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that such matters rarely concern you.
Alex
Gareth Roberts
says...
1:02pm Tue 21 Feb 12
Most people would accept that Guild refers to a group or association of like minded, or like skilled, people. Therefore we are dealing with more than one person. So in this case we are dealing with Critics, rather than a lone critic. Therefore the apostrophe comes after the S. The Guild of Critics.
Of course now there will come the rather embarrassing fluster from Alex along the lines of 'Oh! Oh! I just wanted you to fall into that trap ........' Yawn.
alex twickenham
says...
1:11pm Tue 21 Feb 12
It must be a quiet day in Safari Towers.
Alex
twickersargyle
says...
1:20pm Tue 21 Feb 12
On behalf of visitors to this website, can you stop filling up the comment sections with your tedious, insular, pseudo-party political nonsense? You show yourself, your party and the council in a very poor light. People want to debate the news story in hand, not wade through silly local-politics points scoring.
Gareth Roberts
says...
3:57pm Tue 21 Feb 12
As for Alex, quiet? Not a bit of it but one is always happy to engage!
twickersargyle
says...
4:51pm Tue 21 Feb 12
EdwinaWaugh
says...
9:19pm Thu 23 Feb 12
twickerman says...
5:59pm Fri 17 Feb 12
The only diffference being that Solum offered the Council significant 'financial contributions', whereas Travelodge did not.
The moral of the story - money talks louder that planning policies or harm to local environments.
I also noticed that Zac Goldsmith submitted an objection to the Travelodge application, whereas Twickenham MP Vince Cable has only just announced (in his recent flyer) that he supports TRAG's Plan B scheme for Twickenham station. Sorry, but it's too late to come off the fence now Vince!
Therein lies difference betweeen conviction politics and blatant opportunism.
Come the boundary changes I know who will receive my vote.